If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

How many people who have been overweight for years of their life do you think can just suddenly, magically, overnight trust themselves to eat just enough when hungry and stop when full?

Especially in the process of trying to lose weight. In trying to retrain the body to accept being a new healthier size?

I agree somewhat to this. But my line of thinking is, don't put a band-aid over it. Fix the problem. So if you have a metabolic issue, why not fix your metabolism first? And my first thoughts on doing so is to reduce the amount of stress you bombard your body, not calorically restricting to exacerbate the problem.

Part of the thing that HFLC does for people who use it is help them be satiated so that they can begin to trust their appetites again. It mentally frees them and let's them begin to examine the triggers for stress eating, binges, etc. It's a great tool to let them reset the way they think about food. That should be reason enough not to hassle them at every turn like some around here do.

I am not saying HFLC is bad. I am just saying that long-term caloric deficits forced upon your body just cause even more metabolic disorders through stressors, instead of solving the actual issue. But you are also correct in the fact that it is mentally freeing to do a caloric deficit sometimes, because the high caloric content itself can cause mental distress.

Overall, I think it's something that each person has to struggle to balance - how much of the mental stress vs physical stress of calorie restricting do they want to deal with, and how much they want to compromise each tiny step of the way. Personally, I prefer more mental stress because I've dealt with physical distress before in a previous eating disordered way, and I don't want to go through that binge cycle again. That means slooooow weight loss, and I'm cool with that.

Comment

Then isn't the way the person who is on the diet FEELS of the most importance?

Again, just because you FEEL good, does it mean it's necessarily good for you? You don't know. You could be wreaking metabolic havoc while your body runs on adrenaline, making you feel awesome every day, at least until you hit that wall. I'm not saying that any WOE is right, but I try to look in the long term and balance everything to stress the body out less.

Comment

I agree somewhat to this. But my line of thinking is, don't put a band-aid over it. Fix the problem. So if you have a metabolic issue, why not fix your metabolism first? And my first thoughts on doing so is to reduce the amount of stress you bombard your body, not calorically restricting to exacerbate the problem.

Do you know how to do that?
How to fix a broken metabolism?
There are a lot of theories... some here have said just eat what you want for 6 months and gain weight.
No. Then you just have to calorically restrict and lose that weight AGAIN... that is a yo-yo.
Most of the literatire I have read agrees that losing weight slowly and steadily over time, not suddenly, and eating healthily is the best thing you can do. And that once you reach your goal weight and maintain it for a year that your weight/metabolism will stabilize.
Caloric restriction is necessary to lose weight. Simple fact.

I am not saying HFLC is bad. I am just saying that long-term caloric deficits forced upon your body just cause even more metabolic disorders through stressors, instead of solving the actual issue. But you are also correct in the fact that it is mentally freeing to do a caloric deficit sometimes, because the high caloric content itself can cause mental distress.

Overall, I think it's something that each person has to struggle to balance - how much of the mental stress vs physical stress of calorie restricting do they want to deal with, and how much they want to compromise each tiny step of the way. Personally, I prefer more mental stress because I've dealt with physical distress before in a previous eating disordered way, and I don't want to go through that binge cycle again. That means slooooow weight loss, and I'm cool with that.

I also do SLOW weight loss... I think it is healthier.
I eat HFLC to help with neurological issues (every time someone throws out that "wall" thing all I can think is its pseudoscience... others keep telling me about all these tests I they "bet" low carbers fail... except I also take medications and have a neuro condition that affect some of those things and get tested regularly, and my numbers are fine.) , and it will therefore be long term for me out of necessity, but it has also been amazingly helpful in helping me deal with my other eating issues in ways that I didn't even realize would happen.
And I talk with other people on this forum all the time who say the same thing. The satiety that they gain from HFLC gives them the mental space to deal with their emotional/stress eating triggers in a way that really amazes them. Issues that they could never get past when they were on higher carb.

Now, honestly... it's my sincerest hope that all of those women meet their goals for weight loss... but more importantly I hope that they take the opportunity to really absorb the cues that they are learning from their bodies and then transition slowly back to whatever level of carbs including delicious summer fruit and whatever other carbs they might like to enjoy on occasion.

I'm all for HFLC, it's what I do and I support those in that section of this community.
But what I'm really for is giving people a shot at letting people do what they need to do to get healthy by whatever path they need to take with harassing them...

Comment

Again, just because you FEEL good, does it mean it's necessarily good for you? You don't know. You could be wreaking metabolic havoc while your body runs on adrenaline, making you feel awesome every day, at least until you hit that wall. I'm not saying that any WOE is right, but I try to look in the long term and balance everything to stress the body out less.

Here you need to read some straight science on ketosis...just so you got the basics first:

Comment

All I am saying is, we have some information and we don't have other information. Maybe there are some things in your body that modern science has not found yet, and you are actually screwing yourself over while improving some problems. You don't know. So I just follow the wisdom of the body handed down by thousands of years by my ancestors, and although they're not as technical or specific as modern science, it has been working for a very, very long time.

Comment

Do you know how to do that?
How to fix a broken metabolism?
There are a lot of theories... some here have said just eat what you want for 6 months and gain weight.
No. Then you just have to calorically restrict and lose that weight AGAIN... that is a yo-yo.
Most of the literatire I have read agrees that losing weight slowly and steadily over time, not suddenly, and eating healthily is the best thing you can do. And that once you reach your goal weight and maintain it for a year that your weight/metabolism will stabilize.
Caloric restriction is necessary to lose weight. Simple fact.

No, but not eating processed food helps a lot, especially if we've been eating natural foods for a very, very long time. How do you know that it was the caloric restriction and not the stop-and-go-ness of your body letting go of toxins and other stressors that contributed to better health and higher weight loss?

Comment

Again, just because you FEEL good, does it mean it's necessarily good for you? You don't know. You could be wreaking metabolic havoc while your body runs on adrenaline, making you feel awesome every day, at least until you hit that wall. I'm not saying that any WOE is right, but I try to look in the long term and balance everything to stress the body out less.

Just like there is published data that people bring up saying that low carb is stressful, there is publish data saying that it is not.
It's about 50/50.
Data is data... it gets flip flopped all the time depending on funding.
If it was really that stressful I guarantee my neurologist would not be in favor of it.
Stress causes really bad things to happen in there... trust me.

For me high sugar is actually very stressful in my brain.
I know that people here won't want to believe that, but it's true.
It is not common at all to test high in adrenaline due to LC as some people claim.

“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
~Friedrich Nietzsche
And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

Comment

^ Not just that its not stressful, but there are papers indicating it reduces oxidative stress and promotes longevity. See there may be some magical attributes afterall . Another thing is how protective and generally palliative it is to neurological conditions....I mean hell, anything that good for the brain can't be all that bad for the body IMO.

See, but its saying things like that which really pisses the high carbers off. And in the end I agree with cori, you can make a case out of the science you choose when your talking "optimal". You really need parameters specific to the individual in question to make strong assertions about "optimal".

Comment

^ Not just that its not stressful, but there are papers indicating it reduces oxidative stress and promotes longevity. See there may be some magical attributes afterall . Another thing is how protective and generally palliative it is to neurological conditions....I mean hell, anything that good for the brain can't be all that bad for the body IMO.

I agree.
However I will continue to say it's 50/50 because someone will always dig up their pet paper on something negative.
Not that there is nothing negative that sugar does...

The deal is the body was meant to run just as effectively on either of TWO systems.
Not both 100% of the time. Though that works too...
Either.

No big deal. It's meant to run that way.
My neurologist assures me that it's perfectly healthy to do so.

I'm pretty sure he knows more about brains and human physiology that anyone on this forum.

Also, caloric restriction isn't the big evil that you're making it out to be.
It's actually considered to be healthy and to promote longevity.

Comment

"I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

Comment

I agree somewhat to this. But my line of thinking is, don't put a band-aid over it. Fix the problem. So if you have a metabolic issue, why not fix your metabolism first? And my first thoughts on doing so is to reduce the amount of stress you bombard your body, not calorically restricting to exacerbate the problem.

Actually, for me the low carb fixed my metabolism really nicely and I didn't have to restrict my calories, although it just sorta happened anyway.

Before I did it, I tried just reducing calories and exercising but I was always hungry so I would either be starving over a HUGE dry salad and crying or stuffing my face with a muffin and hating myself. The low carb took the hunger away. And I don't mean that it was some kind of gimmick where it limited the choices so I couldn't eat crap. It literally took all the hunger away. I had this chronic hunger leftover from hiking the Pacific Crest Trail, 30 miles a day, that just would not go away and poof in an instant that hunger was over. I could eat three meals a day like a normal person. I could even eat two or just one. I didn't even have to exercise to lose weight.

Now I eat lots of carbs and it doesn't seem to trigger any excessive hunger or anything like it used to. Something was fixed. I know it because it's my life and I can feel that something is fixed. I didn't end up with a body like Mark, even though I lift weights, sprint, move slowly and all that. Oh well. Don't have hair like that either. Not everybody is going to end up like that. That's just the reality of it.

Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

Comment

Bit late to the party derp! Me and Choco were hashing out an isocaloric study he posted....I'm of the mind the researchers stating "no statistical difference..." and "There was no significant change in fat free mass for either diet." tend to speak loudly. Past few pages if you'd like to read. Talking about a singular metabolic process in a vacuum is quite different than what happens in an organism as a whole.

I'll concede on that point, that experimental phases haven't been fleshed out enough in vivo to substantiate either claim as far as results go. Doesn't really refute what happens metabolically though.

I do not doubt this at all. But I think there are positives and negatives to everything, so is the health and longevity you are seeing worth the cost of something else that is potentially harmful? So you just have to pick and choose your poisons in the end.

I'm not giving a blanket statement, necessarily, on the fact that low carb or low cal or whatever is bad for you. I am just pointing out that there may be some bad things about it, and everyone should know about both sides of the coin before choosing the path that they want to take. And for myself, I'd rather not take the low-cal route, but try to fix my metabolism first.